I watch a friend's set. 1080 "Full" (not necessarily just p) is worth it. As many have said, resolution is only part of the story. It's overall pix quality counts, incl. contrast, color dynamic range and hue, and for lack of a better term "liveness." You must FIRST start with a true HD pix; many "HD" sources are not. Playing an appropriate video disc (like the BlueRay touted by many already) is one way, or a full HD live broadcast (like some news or football!) ok - it's a guy thing. For some broadcasts you feel like you could walk right onto the field (or into the scene) rather than watching a 2-D image! Much variation in room lighting and with LCD, Plasma, and DLP technology as well. I'm settling on DLP - and curious to see what pops out at the comm'l show in LV. (elec engineer w >30 yrs in SATCOM, plus a few in educational broadcast TV)

I own one of each 1080i/40in and 1080p/52in Sony LCD flat screens. With normal DVD and standard TV reception, my untrained eyes can not appreciate the difference. However, with HD TV reception or Blue Ray DVD player, the difference is really awesome! One regret that I have about purchasing a 1080p, I no longer watch 1080i in my master suite.

i originally bought a 1080p dlp (boy was that a mistake) read my review to see what problems i had, it had a great contrast ratio and good black levels but the picture was horrible it was great for gaming tho.

as soon as i started looking for a TV to watch movies and broadcast on i started pointing out 720p's (larger then 40in) as i was walking down the aisle (i can actually see the blank spaces between the pixels, and i can fairly accurately guess the contrast ratio), really hd is relative to the size of the TV, a 50" 1080 isn't going to be nearly as Highly Defined as a 15" 720p, right now I'm on the highest def monitor i have its a 17" CRT that pulls 1200p (4:3) and it has a better picture then any TV i have seen so far.

30i vs 60(p)fpsif your comparing a movie such as the queen (i vs. p) your not going to see much difference, i see a sizable amount of difference between i and p when watching action movies (which is most of what i watch) i use i for my hddvr because most of the TV shows i watch are either originally broadcast in i (so there's no reason for the extra bandwidth to be wasted) and aren't high action (the simpsons, house, etc, etc.).

i bought a 1080p LCD from walmart the picture is ok but the black is way to bright, if cannon would get off there a**'s and get sed out I'm sure we would see a entirely new and better picture then the ones we are seeing now.

7 feet away from the picture might be fine on a 27 inch, but for those of us sitting 16 feet or further away, we can't really answer this question. I bought a 1080p 42" and I'm very happy. I bought the 1080p for "future" needs rather than current. HD-DVD/Blu-Ray can take full advantage of the resolution.

The "sharpness and quality" are the same because you're viewing them at native resolution on the same display. Since the 1080p video is "bigger" however you will be able to see smaller details. If you want to compare them on your computer, download 720p and 1080p versions of the same desktop wallpaper, resize the 720p one to the dimensions of the 1080p one, and view them both at 100% zoom. On the other hand, if you had a 1080p-capable monitor and viewed both videos full-screen you would see the difference. These aren't perfect comparisons because there's scaling going on, but it gets my point across--you're thinking about the comparison wrong--in this case you need to compare how much detail you can see in the image, because at 100% zoom on the same display the pixels are the same.

I had my Toshiba 720P 50" right up to my Sony 1080p 50" and they were both being fed the same source material.

During a movie or anything else having movement I honestly couldn't tell the difference in resolution. They both looked pretty damn good.

Where you can tell the difference is when you freeze frame the image (especially with computer graphics) and walk up to both TV's and eyeball them from about a foot away. Things are noticeably sharper on the 1080p set but that difference fades away quickly the further you back off.

In my opinion, unless you just have to have the 1080p sticker on the side of your TV to make you feel better I'd concentrate more on which TV has a better contrast and deeper black levels. My Toshiba may be 720p but I love watching it more than the Sony because the overall picture looks so much better especially during dark and spooky monster movies.

What next, 1080T, Q, R? I've had hdtv on my 55" projector TV for over 3 years and after the initial pleasure of viewing HD, ones eyes, at least mine, gets accustomed to watching it and now I really do not see any great difference in digital channels and HD...i compared that with Color TV when it first came out well enough to be enjoyed. I watched crap sitcoms just because of the color...now its crap in HD. That wore off and so will this...maybe, just maybe 3D perfected in HD would make a difference..but I am not holding my breath.

In my experience, it depends on what type of equipment you own. I have a older 32' Sharp LCD TV that is a 720p/1080i set. I did see a small difference when I bought a Sharp Aquos 1080p set, barely, when using my FIOS TV HD Receiver. But a recent purchase of a Pioneer PDP-4280, a 720 Plasma TV, changed the idea that 1080p makes a big difference as I believe my pioneer plasma tv has a better picture quality than my 1080p Aquos. I preferred lcd than plasma but after seeing the picture that came out of my plasma tv, I was sold! I don't have any bluray or hd dvd player to fully know if there is a difference. If I had to guess, I still think my plasma tv would still have a better picture quality than my lcd tv.

According to my experience it takes a horizontal resolution (line density) of 3 or more lines per degree to be able NOT to see the individual lines. Get out your trig boooks, it's a simple calculation. That tells you how far from the screen you viewer needs to be to not notice the scan lines with a fixed screen height. Or if viewing from a fixed distance, how small the screen must be not to see the scan lines.

The only time I ever bought a high tech device before the price, development, and bugs were mostly settled out was for a Mac 128. So I will wait a bit longer before taking the plunge. But I have spent hours at the local mass merchant electronics shops viewing their demos and talking the the reps. I love 'em all so far when I'm not paying.

Whoa baby. That sounded weird - the moon is about 1/2 degree across and it sure takes a lot more than 1.5 "lines" of resolution to show the detail I can see in the moon. Perhaps you mean 3 lines per minute of arc - but that's too fine. OK, let's do the math. When I look at my 42" 720p plasma from 5 ft. I can start to see pixels. Each pixel is .027" across. Now, arcsin(.027/60) = .0258 deg, which says I'm seeing almost 40 lines to the degree.

Yes, finally you will conclude that the 1080p combination (source and panel) DO show the movie with more perfection in the contours of images, practically zero catching of the small pixels (the matrix of little squares is almost invisible on a 1080p screen with a 1080p source).

However, if you sit and watch the whole movie in 720p (with the same sound quality) your experience as a whole might not be at all any different than if you had watched it on the 1080p set.

The question after the above experience is: the difference in cost between the 1080p experience and the 720p: is it worth the extra "investment"?

If you need to decide between the 720p panel and the 1080p panel, you should also consider the fact that most of the source today is still less than 720p.

The existing DVD's and in countries outside the USA, TV stations and cable services are FAR from providing HDTV. So, if you will have to live watching a new investment in flat panel WITH lower resolution sources, your comparison should include the test of seeing exactly the same program or movie on the 1080p and on the 720p at the same time.

Here you will notice that the 720p image might be slightly less distorted, because the system MUST make up (invent, show from upgrade on the fly) for the missing information as it receives it from the SD source. The HD 720p (and 1080p even more) must fill in 720 pixels, but it is receiving only 480. So it must ADD from certain "logic" of extension the other 300 extra pixels. The 1080p panel must add 600 extra pixels! That is a lot of work and intelligence needed to make a good work, don't you think so?

It is aggravating to see an image on a panel you just paid a fortune for looking so bad compared to a regular old CRT you-know-what-brand TV set.

This is why you need to compare the quality of scaling in the TV, because a standard definition source can look great or horrible on a 720p OR 1080p TV, depending on the scaling quality. With same SD source, a 1080p TV will never be worse than a 720p TV of the same size unless the scaling is not as good. If your TV doesn't scale DVDs very well: get an upconverting (or at least progressive scan if it isn't already) DVD player and connect it with component or HDMI; OR use your computer to play movies, connected with VGA and set to the proper resolution.

Also you seem to be confused about the numbers. 720p is not 720 pixels--it's 720 horizontal lines, each of which has 1280 pixels--hence 720p means a resolution of 1280x720. Likewise, 1080p is 1920x1080. Therefore scaling involves filling in both the extra lines, and the extra width of each line. You seem to have the overall concept right though.

between the PioneerKuro PDP4280HD (plasma 720p), Panasonic TH42PZ700U or the Mitsubishi LT-40134 40" LCD, leaning back, watching some ESPN sports (my sportsaholic son deserves better than our 14 year old 50 indinosaur), and much NY cable (HBO etc) and Bluray/HiDef...where would you go? It is a bedroom set 5 to 10 feet away (adjustable) and ,for awhile, the best & largest one in the house....Sorry to bother you.. Thanks.

Call me a flat earth society/luddite - I don't watch enough commercial ridden, moronic sitcomm, crummy 'D' movies, reality TV to have more then the bare bones set-up. And yes, I do understand that my 2 Toshiba's are starting to get fuzzy around the edges(good grief, they're only 10 and 7 years old) and something will have to replace them since CRT's have gone the way of the gooney bird so I'll buy the barest bones/price driven TVs.(now about my Blackberry/Bluetooth/lap top/cell with email, text, web surfing, etc/my book reader/my desktop with 8G ram, 750G HD,Blue-Ray,CD-R/RW, DVD+-R/Digital camera/Digital Photo frame/my new fly by wire P/U truck/etc, etc, etc where does it end??)

This may be slightly off topic but here goes. When I paid my TimeWarnercable/Roadrunner bill today I asked the CSR the difference between Digital and HD TV. She did a fair job of explaining it; then when I got outside the lady who was next to me in line told me that I do NOT need an HDTV to get HD quality; she said she uses the converter box on a 30-year old TV and the picture quality is just about equal to an HDTV. The converter box is about $15.00 a month. I was planning to upgrade to HDTV but now I'm re-thinking it, at least until 2009. Does anyone have any comments or thoughts on this? Thanks a bunch and MERRY CHRISTMAS to Cnet.

Cannot get HD picture on a SDTV set. BUT if you can continue to tolerate your set (and why not since you've had it for eons) don't buy until it dies. If you move or downsize your abode, consider a plasma or LCD TV since they take up less space and generally look snazzier. The lady who opined to you probably never compared a SD vs. HD picture side-by-side.

Thanks for the info; MY TV is not that old, maybe 8 years and has a pretty good picture. The lady who told me about the converter has the 30-some year old TV. They have a HDTV in the lobby at TWC and she said her picture (with the converter box) is nearly as good as the one at TWC. I don't watch that much TV anyway but the better 1/2 is a TRUE couch potato who won't miss a NASCAR race or NFL game unless there is an emergency in the family or the house is on fire. LOL! Also, to get true HD doesn't the program have to be broadcast in HD?

to get HD picture on your HDTV, the program content has to be HD and the signal carrying the program to TV set is digital. TWC launched HD earlier this year but not in all regions so I'm still seeing SD-TWC. SD programming on digital signal (via cable) looks better on my old tube than on an HDTV. So if the TWC lobby only has SD content (can't imagine why they would start an HD service but not display HD in their lobby) it would explain why she thinks her converterbox/SDTV combo looks as good as HDTV.

If you get a chance, check out a PBS HD program http://www.pbs.org/digitaltv/ but hang onto your money tightly. It will forever change your opinion on which format you would rather watch.

I have a Panasonic 42 inch, I put it on 720 and its not crisp compared to 1080.My cousin saved money and got a Mitsubishi 42 inch. It has 720.We both have directv with HD stations.But 720 doesnt compare to 1080 when you use HD stations.But.....He is happy with his.....I am happy with mine.

Actually most cable HD (in my area at least) is delivered in 1080i and I am pretty sure that one of the leading HD carriers (direct TV, who is going to have a huge HD channel lineup by year end) is also 1080i. Not to mention blu-ray or HD-DVD will be 1080p. 720p will be a thing of the past soon I think. Most top LCDs are 1080p now and it looks like most new plasmas are the same way.

If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.

Track this thread and email me when there are updates.Please read before posting

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

Old Thread Warning!

This thread is more than days old. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and replying to it will serve no purpose. However, if you feel it is necessary to make a new reply, you can still do so.

I am aware that this thread is old, but I still want to post a reply.

Checkbox must be checked in order to post in this old thread.

Sorry, there was a problem submitting your post. Please try again.

Sorry, there was a problem generating the preview. Please try again.

Duplicate posts are not allowed in the forums. Please edit your post and submit again.